Trump vs. Trump, again: Judge cites presidential tweets as he blocks DACA phaseout

[smilesammich 10,727]

Quote

“The main, if not exclusive, rationale for ending DACA was its supposed illegality. But determining illegality is a quintessential role of the courts,” Alsup wrote.

In other words, it’s not up to the administration to decide whether one of its predecessor’s policies is illegal. That’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s job, and the high court hasn’t ruled on DACA’s legality.

If the Supreme Court were to rule on DACA and find that it was constitutionally sound, “then a policy supported as high up as our chief executive has been the victim of a colossal blunder,” the judge wrote, again referencing the president’s tweets.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, Alsup found that the plaintiffs — a collection of DACA recipients, universities and states — would suffer irreparable harm if the administration moved forward with plans to terminate the program in March before the case is resolved.

Frenzen, of USC, stressed that the plaintiffs weren’t challenging the president’s authority over the program but the motivations behind the decision to end it. The administration could have avoided some of its headaches if it had worked out a rationale for the move that was supported by evidence and offered it up for public comment, as required by federal administrative law.

“They could have said, ‘We intend to dismantle the program for the following reasons and this is how we’re going to go about doing it.’ That would give opportunities for civil rights attorneys, congressional representatives, experts and others to weigh in, in public comments,” Frenzen said. “If you had done your homework and complied with the law, you’d be in a very different place.”

If nothing else, Alsup wrote in his ruling, the plaintiffs were entitled to “learn of all flaws, if any more there be, lurking” behind the DACA decision. He noted that the plaintiffs had suggested the administration had terminated the program so it could be used as a bargaining chip to demand funding for a border wall. And again, he cited the president’s Twitter feed as evidence.

“A presidential tweet after our hearing gives credence to this claim,” Alsup wrote.

The tweet in question, posted by Trump on Dec. 29, read: “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.” Alsup granted a request by the plaintiffs to take “judicial notice” of the tweet.

Alsup’s order notwithstanding, Trump appeared to double down on the proposal Tuesday night, stubborn as ever. “Our country needs the security of the Wall on the Southern Border,” he tweeted, “which must be part of any DACA approval.”

trump vs trump

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

So it was constionual when Obama started it with an executive in an end run around Congress, but not when Trump ended and said let Congress decide,  becuse he did not have congressional approval.

 

Somebody done gone and dropped some acid 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So it was constionual when Obama started it with an executive in an end run around Congress, but not when Trump ended and said let Congress decide,  becuse he did not have congressional approval.

 

Somebody done gone and dropped some acid 

Hypocrisy is the #1 virtue of some.  

[smilesammich 10,727]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So it was constionual when Obama started it with an executive in an end run around Congress, but not when Trump ended and said let Congress decide,  becuse he did not have congressional approval.

 

Somebody done gone and dropped some acid 

Quote

In other words, it’s not up to the administration to decide whether one of its predecessor’s policies is illegal. That’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s job, and the high court hasn’t ruled on DACA’s legality.

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

13 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 

It's really very simple. If it's constionual to do it with an executive orders it's also constitutional to in do it with an executive order.

 

This absurd non sense will be quickly overturned. 

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

8 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

It's really very simple. If it's constionual to do it with an executive orders it's also constitutional to in do it with an executive order.

 

This absurd non sense will be quickly overturned. 

 

 

it is simple, until trump contradicts himself in a tweet. 

 

Quote

Alsup was tasked with, among other things, determining whether it would serve the public interest to leave DACA in place while litigation over the decision to scrap the program proceeds.

On this point, he had an easy answer: Trump himself had expressed support for DACA on Twitter in September, just days after Department of Homeland Security officials rescinded it.

“Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” the president wrote in a Sept. 14 tweet. Another read: “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”

Donald J. Trump

 

 

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....

5:28 AM - Sep 14, 2017

Those lines seemed to capture the program’s benefits in a nutshell, Alsup wrote in a 49-page order.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So Trump set a 6 month deadline to legalize DACA.  Which is really a lot more, considering how long since Obama started it.

 

Have the powers that be met that requirement? Only 2 months remain.

[Dashinka 24,075]

1 minute ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Trump (and the Republican)  won't sign a clean bill. 

 

Define a clean bill?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

Dreamers get to keep their permanent residence with a clear route to citzenship. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

45 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Dreamers get to keep their permanent residence with a clear route to citzenship. 

Therein lies the issue.... they don’t HAVE LPR status, and under current law, they cannot.

 

While I think it would be unfair to just send all DACA folks “back home”, since coming here as kids the US is the only home they have known, it’s also tough to just grant a waiver to ALL DACA folks, since some of them clearly violated immigration laws to get here.  It’s a slippery slope, and no matter what happens, some of them will get hurt, and some will get over on the current system.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

29 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Therein lies the issue.... they don’t HAVE LPR status, and under current law, they cannot.

 

While I think it would be unfair to just send all DACA folks “back home”, since coming here as kids the US is the only home they have known, it’s also tough to just grant a waiver to ALL DACA folks, since some of them clearly violated immigration laws to get here.  It’s a slippery slope, and no matter what happens, some of them will get hurt, and some will get over on the current system.

There is no issue and no its not tough its also not a slippery slope.
These are people lives, and not some sick partisan game to get a wall.

-Congress needs to pass a clean bill ( maybe with some fences and drones tact on).
- Trump needs sign the bill.

That was the plan when trump tried to repeal DACA.
Let congress do their job then let the president do his.
 

[smilesammich 10,727]

36 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Therein lies the issue.... they don’t HAVE LPR status, and under current law, they cannot.

 

While I think it would be unfair to just send all DACA folks “back home”, since coming here as kids the US is the only home they have known, it’s also tough to just grant a waiver to ALL DACA folks, since some of them clearly violated immigration laws to get here.  It’s a slippery slope, and no matter what happens, some of them will get hurt, and some will get over on the current system.

nope. there's a pretty strict applicant process for daca and violating immigration laws as an adult would disqualify.

 

Quote

You may request consideration of DACA if you:

1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:

• You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or
• Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012;

6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/frequently-asked-questions

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

15 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

There is no issue and no its not tough its also not a slippery slope.
These are people lives, and not some sick partisan game to get a wall.

-Congress needs to pass a clean bill ( maybe with some fences and drones tact on).
- Trump needs sign the bill.

That was the plan when trump tried to repeal DACA.
Let congress do their job then let the president do his.
 

Hold up, wait a minute...

 

You said, and I quote: “Dreamers get to keep their permanent residence with a clear route to citzenship. “

 

So explain to me how you think a dreamer (just a label for an illegal immigrant) already has LPR status that they should be able to keep?

Edited January 10, 2018 by IDWAF

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

nope. there's a pretty strict applicant process for daca and violating immigration laws as an adult would disqualify.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/frequently-asked-questions

 

I guess I was thinking that DACA was covering the parents of these people as well.  Is that not the case?  

 

Seems pretty lenient... allowing someone who came here in 1982 as a kid who had no control over their life, and didn’t know what illegal immigration was back then, but who then lived here 30 years... a bye.  Surely in the 30 intervening years, they could have fixed their illegal status?

Edited January 10, 2018 by IDWAF

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, IDWAF said:

I guess I was thinking that DACA was covering the parents of these people as well.  Is that not the case?  

nope. it was created for folks who were brought here as children and are hs graduates (minimum)/current students/military and with no criminal record. never made sense to me why anyone would be against it. there is no legal avenue for people who qualify under the dream act to become citizens or gain legal residence at all (even marrying a us citizen) they can only renew their daca status. and this judge today isn't touching the portion of trump's decision to stop allowing new applications. that remains in place. so we're talking about a very specific group of people, who have been keeping their end of the deal concerning the requirements of daca - which are pretty sound.